It's Back!! NAS 3B coming to some airspace near you!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Paging Mr Smith, just wondering if you have time to respond to my post?
I wish you all the best in your new position.
Cheers, HH.
I wish you all the best in your new position.
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding this, thousands of IFR airline aircraft transit through Class E every day (see here). Every day, when Qantas flies into LA or JFK, it flies through Class E airspace. If there is a VFR aircraft in similar circumstances, the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear. No, it may not be the prescribed Australian system but it is simply the proven NAS system.
Is this service closer to B or G?
I don't have a problem with providing the services in the manner that it is done in the USA; but please acknowledge to get this level of service you must, repeat must, adjust the workload of those controllers to be able to react correctly.
This is where it has fallen down so far, not mentioning the radar coverage issue, the additional services have been added onto the existing sectors, to keep costs in check, thus rendering the ability to react at less than an optimum level; remembering that traffic is actually required by the airspace, not avoidance vectoring.
I have written many times here on PPRUNE that C is safer than E, and requires less controllers given the same facilities. Because you can ‘plan’ what you do and as a last resort if need say no; an amended clearance with known elements is far safer than reacting to the unknown VFR in a safety critical moment. So why would we actually want less safety at higher cost?
When you next ‘evaluate and cost predict’ please do not dismiss my idea’s simply because they do not fit your ideal. E over D is safe, but it is not as safe as C over D.
How many TCAS RAs have we had in Class C VFR to IFR since we rolled back?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note with interest that the:
"FINAL REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF CHARACTERISTIC 29, OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) STAGE 2C"
is published on the DoTRS web site and comments are being received until 20th April.
It is interesting to note that at last someone has made a very strong point about pilot/industry education in airspace change. For many years, perhaps 15 or so, I don't believe that we have ever seen more than 20 or 25% of the required education on airspace change. There is and has not been any commitment to an ongoing education program. You just can't do it for 3 months before the start date of the changes and think everyone has a handle on it.
If there were 100 pilots in the famous G Trial area, I would have said there were 90 different interpretations on how it should work and how one should participate in it !! No wonder it was stopped !
If we are going to do this properly, then we should increase the amount of education by at least four fold and the program must be ongoing (for ever if necessary!). CASA must bite the bullet and accept that they alone are responsible for standardisation across the industry. Just tell me who provides the standardisation to CFIs and Chief Pilots ?? Nobody!! as they do it themselves, because (incorrectly) CASA has let them go that way. No wonder it is a mess. Have we seen CASA mandate, yes, mandate attendance at briefing sessions or mandate specific airspace subject matter in AFRs and IRRs - No! Until they do it wont work.
The other point that the paper makes is that if you are going to change something it must be for an obvious valid reason/s and this needs to be communicated to the end user. The Sales pitch was never done and we all know the results, especially from the resistance to change that was there.
Finally, someone has come out and said that CULTURE must be recognised and addressed. It never was and many of us said so, but others knew better and again we know the results.
Change must be managed (it never was done as a serious project).
Change must be "sold" to the intended users
Change must be justified - both from a practical and $$ perspective
Change must address culture issues
Let's hope CASA get it right this time! (and budget for it)
"FINAL REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF CHARACTERISTIC 29, OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) STAGE 2C"
is published on the DoTRS web site and comments are being received until 20th April.
It is interesting to note that at last someone has made a very strong point about pilot/industry education in airspace change. For many years, perhaps 15 or so, I don't believe that we have ever seen more than 20 or 25% of the required education on airspace change. There is and has not been any commitment to an ongoing education program. You just can't do it for 3 months before the start date of the changes and think everyone has a handle on it.
If there were 100 pilots in the famous G Trial area, I would have said there were 90 different interpretations on how it should work and how one should participate in it !! No wonder it was stopped !
If we are going to do this properly, then we should increase the amount of education by at least four fold and the program must be ongoing (for ever if necessary!). CASA must bite the bullet and accept that they alone are responsible for standardisation across the industry. Just tell me who provides the standardisation to CFIs and Chief Pilots ?? Nobody!! as they do it themselves, because (incorrectly) CASA has let them go that way. No wonder it is a mess. Have we seen CASA mandate, yes, mandate attendance at briefing sessions or mandate specific airspace subject matter in AFRs and IRRs - No! Until they do it wont work.
The other point that the paper makes is that if you are going to change something it must be for an obvious valid reason/s and this needs to be communicated to the end user. The Sales pitch was never done and we all know the results, especially from the resistance to change that was there.
Finally, someone has come out and said that CULTURE must be recognised and addressed. It never was and many of us said so, but others knew better and again we know the results.
Change must be managed (it never was done as a serious project).
Change must be "sold" to the intended users
Change must be justified - both from a practical and $$ perspective
Change must address culture issues
Let's hope CASA get it right this time! (and budget for it)
Last edited by triadic; 5th Apr 2007 at 22:44. Reason: thought of more content!
Dick,
You have got to be joking. In a few months we'll have a 550t aircraft with 550 fare-paying pax on board with the pilots looking out the window in an attempt to see and then avoid (IF ATC will let them off their cleared route) a light aircraft swanning around in E airspace.
That is just sheer LUNACY.
This is NOT 1950! Get rid of E airspace!
the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear.
That is just sheer LUNACY.
This is NOT 1950! Get rid of E airspace!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps put simply for both sides of the fence [and to use "that" word again], we in Oz chose to introduce another country's airspace system without introducing the culture involved.
In USA's 'E', ATC will separate IFR from VFR if not sighted by the IFR a/c. That's not in the words; it's the practice of the controllers who see it as their duty of care. I notice that the guys here are much more aware of traffic advice and seem quite comfortable with offering a solution if the conflict is beyond the IFR a/c.
G'day
In USA's 'E', ATC will separate IFR from VFR if not sighted by the IFR a/c. That's not in the words; it's the practice of the controllers who see it as their duty of care. I notice that the guys here are much more aware of traffic advice and seem quite comfortable with offering a solution if the conflict is beyond the IFR a/c.
G'day
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feather #3, the culture is the key; it's too late to ask for avoidance secnds before the TCAS RA happens; personally as an ATC flying an IFR jet, I'd say in response to any VFR traffic advice; request avoidance.
In radar coverage, traffic is given, if in the opinion of the ATC it is warranted; thus it should be clear to all on radar if your getting traffic info on VFR then you are going to be closer than the minimum radar standard; often much closer. Warranted isn't "just" less than the minimum radar, but means it's going to be too close to call. You may have noticed from time to time being only a mile or so away from other aircraft and not getting traffic info; this is because the controller deemed it wasn't warranted; conversely you may get traffic advice on something that is 10NM away; this means the ATC was going to be too busy to monitor you and the VFR; so gave traffic when they could.
Personally I believe that the industry shouldn't have to be separated from VFRs in E; it's the cake upside down. The most expensive (generally) equipment with fare paying passengers are given extra flight time or reduced safety, being taken off STARs etc to facilitate the VFR transit flight who generally has no requirement to be there 'unknown' but chooses to be.
Where is the rest of the world headed? What is in the ICAO docs and work programs for airspace design moving forward to accommodate all the new types of traffic, such as UAVs, not real compatible with see and avoid airspace. The USA is going to change to facilitate traffic movements, to avoid delays and they aren't concentrating on VFR facilitation (user pays), where are they going and why would we try to copy their 1950s design?
In radar coverage, traffic is given, if in the opinion of the ATC it is warranted; thus it should be clear to all on radar if your getting traffic info on VFR then you are going to be closer than the minimum radar standard; often much closer. Warranted isn't "just" less than the minimum radar, but means it's going to be too close to call. You may have noticed from time to time being only a mile or so away from other aircraft and not getting traffic info; this is because the controller deemed it wasn't warranted; conversely you may get traffic advice on something that is 10NM away; this means the ATC was going to be too busy to monitor you and the VFR; so gave traffic when they could.
Personally I believe that the industry shouldn't have to be separated from VFRs in E; it's the cake upside down. The most expensive (generally) equipment with fare paying passengers are given extra flight time or reduced safety, being taken off STARs etc to facilitate the VFR transit flight who generally has no requirement to be there 'unknown' but chooses to be.
Where is the rest of the world headed? What is in the ICAO docs and work programs for airspace design moving forward to accommodate all the new types of traffic, such as UAVs, not real compatible with see and avoid airspace. The USA is going to change to facilitate traffic movements, to avoid delays and they aren't concentrating on VFR facilitation (user pays), where are they going and why would we try to copy their 1950s design?
the Qantas crew is given traffic and if the pilots do not sight the traffic within a reasonable time, the aircraft is given a vector – normally track shortening – to remain clear.
How is it normally track shortening? That is a complete fabrication. Even if it was track shortening are you aware of the issues involved in giving a heavy jet a late change to descent profile?
E airspace should only exist with radar coverage.
Last edited by Icarus2001; 6th Apr 2007 at 02:43.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One only has to read this to see how simple E airspace is
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200304963.aspx
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200304963.aspx
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VFR aircraft involved was not subject to a RIS because at the time, rather than follow the proven US NAS procedures, Airservices had introduced a “one shot” system which was all but useless.
As two of the scenarios that scared the ****e of the ATC took place within my group I will ensure these scenarios are included in any training package that is offered (if I'm still the NAS guy...) For realism the scenarios should terminate in a TCAS RA or collision if a vector is not issued to the airliner, to allow Dick's rich mate to continue his more important business unmolested.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Triadic. A comparitive consideration is that the education should be given time to work. With every education program that has occurred in the past 15 years, changes to regs are being made right up to the last minute. This makes it impossible to plan a comprehensive education program.
In the planning stages:
* a date gets set to implement changes. Fine.
* an education progam is factored in that works backwards from the implementation date. Fine.
* This provides a drop dead date for final changes to be incorporated. Not fine.
This last dot point mentioned is where the programs fall apart. Consultation and arguments inevitably drag on well past the date that changes should be finalised. The change merchants still have the implementation date on their minds and the education program gets squeezed, sometimes to the point that changes are still being made while pilot presentations are being conducted. In this case, pilots are better off without the education at all, rather than educating them on incorrect procedures.
Any aviation education program should be considered as an important measurement of the success of the program manager's task. In CASA, it gets bumped off to another department and the program manager washes his hands. Why? In part because the program manager is generally a specialist and education matters fall outside his or her experience.
The education needs to be considered as part of the implementation and not a house cleaning task afterwards.
In the planning stages:
* a date gets set to implement changes. Fine.
* an education progam is factored in that works backwards from the implementation date. Fine.
* This provides a drop dead date for final changes to be incorporated. Not fine.
This last dot point mentioned is where the programs fall apart. Consultation and arguments inevitably drag on well past the date that changes should be finalised. The change merchants still have the implementation date on their minds and the education program gets squeezed, sometimes to the point that changes are still being made while pilot presentations are being conducted. In this case, pilots are better off without the education at all, rather than educating them on incorrect procedures.
Any aviation education program should be considered as an important measurement of the success of the program manager's task. In CASA, it gets bumped off to another department and the program manager washes his hands. Why? In part because the program manager is generally a specialist and education matters fall outside his or her experience.
The education needs to be considered as part of the implementation and not a house cleaning task afterwards.
SM4 Pirate, you state:
Yes, in its simplistic form I would agree with you, but in the case of Airservices at Albury, they hand the extra Class C airspace to one controller in the tower, who is already at some times overloaded giving services in the Class D airspace below – where the collision risk is far greater.
Class C is obviously safer than Class E or Class D if it is properly staffed and there is a proper radar facility provided - otherwise the controller would have little idea where the VFR aircraft was.
If Airservices had performed the Class E over Class D study correctly, they would have looked at the extra workload on the Class D controller below, when given the extra duties in the Class C above, and also factored in the greater chance of an error being made by the controller in relation to aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. This purposely wasn’t done.
The reason the US NAS system has E over D is in relation to maximising safety with the available resources. Accidents happen close to an airport, and most often in the circuit area or on the runway. That is where the controller should be concentrating – not in putting a chinagraph pencil across a map to try to separate an IFR and VFR aircraft at 7,500 feet 20 miles from the aerodrome.
I have written many times here on PPRUNE that C is safer than E … E over D is safe, but it is not as safe as C over D.
Class C is obviously safer than Class E or Class D if it is properly staffed and there is a proper radar facility provided - otherwise the controller would have little idea where the VFR aircraft was.
If Airservices had performed the Class E over Class D study correctly, they would have looked at the extra workload on the Class D controller below, when given the extra duties in the Class C above, and also factored in the greater chance of an error being made by the controller in relation to aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. This purposely wasn’t done.
The reason the US NAS system has E over D is in relation to maximising safety with the available resources. Accidents happen close to an airport, and most often in the circuit area or on the runway. That is where the controller should be concentrating – not in putting a chinagraph pencil across a map to try to separate an IFR and VFR aircraft at 7,500 feet 20 miles from the aerodrome.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick - I just want you to shut up and go away. I have one of the stupid Airspace at a Glance cards you once gave to me - i kept it to remind me of how absurd your 'vision' was in Australian aviation conditions. Nothing's changed. Can't you see you are one of a very few that thinks this is a good idea - does this not tell you anything. You don't work in RPT - you have no idea - just stop your whining and complaining and go and save an Australian brand instead - you're much better at that - and I mean that sincerely.
And don't reply to this post - I don't want to hear it! Just shut up
And don't reply to this post - I don't want to hear it! Just shut up
From CASA's website:
The new policy setting out CASA’s overarching priorities states that the authority has been established primarily to look after the interests of the travelling public.
In addition, the policy says CASA’s resources must be allocated according to these priorities.
A risk-based approach has been taken to setting the priorities based on factors such as public concerns about their control over risks, their safety expectations and the potential for multiple fatalities.
CASA’s new priorities by industry sector are:
* Passenger transport – large aircraft
* Passenger transport – small aircraft (includes low capacity regular public transport, charter and humanitarian aerial work such as search and rescue and medical evacuations)
* Other commercial operations which carry passengers, such as joy flights
* Flying training
* Aerial work carrying passengers such as geological surveys or media operations
* Non-passenger carrying aerial work such as agricultural and freight operations
* Private transport and personal business flights
* High risk personal recreation and sports aviation flights
This hierarchy of priorities applies to the maintenance organisations, aerodromes and other infrastructure that support each sector of operations.
In other words, maintenance organisations that service high capacity regular public transport operations have a higher priority than other organisations.
The policy states that the allocation of CASA’s resources to a sector will correspond to that sector’s position on the list.
This means the overwhelming proportion of resources will go to the first five sectors, which carry passengers.
To me, it follows that, in an airspace debate, what is best for Passenger Transport must take precedence. That is, even if GA aircraft are inconvenienced because of a more onerous airspace classification in a particular area ... if it means a greater safety for Transport Aircraft, CASA must select that classification.
It would be difficult, if not ompossible, for them (being the new Airspace Regulators) to argue that they implemented Class E over the top of Sydney so that weekend warriors could have a more accessible look-see.
The new policy setting out CASA’s overarching priorities states that the authority has been established primarily to look after the interests of the travelling public.
In addition, the policy says CASA’s resources must be allocated according to these priorities.
A risk-based approach has been taken to setting the priorities based on factors such as public concerns about their control over risks, their safety expectations and the potential for multiple fatalities.
CASA’s new priorities by industry sector are:
* Passenger transport – large aircraft
* Passenger transport – small aircraft (includes low capacity regular public transport, charter and humanitarian aerial work such as search and rescue and medical evacuations)
* Other commercial operations which carry passengers, such as joy flights
* Flying training
* Aerial work carrying passengers such as geological surveys or media operations
* Non-passenger carrying aerial work such as agricultural and freight operations
* Private transport and personal business flights
* High risk personal recreation and sports aviation flights
This hierarchy of priorities applies to the maintenance organisations, aerodromes and other infrastructure that support each sector of operations.
In other words, maintenance organisations that service high capacity regular public transport operations have a higher priority than other organisations.
The policy states that the allocation of CASA’s resources to a sector will correspond to that sector’s position on the list.
This means the overwhelming proportion of resources will go to the first five sectors, which carry passengers.
To me, it follows that, in an airspace debate, what is best for Passenger Transport must take precedence. That is, even if GA aircraft are inconvenienced because of a more onerous airspace classification in a particular area ... if it means a greater safety for Transport Aircraft, CASA must select that classification.
It would be difficult, if not ompossible, for them (being the new Airspace Regulators) to argue that they implemented Class E over the top of Sydney so that weekend warriors could have a more accessible look-see.
but in the case of Airservices at Albury, they hand the extra Class C airspace to one controller in the tower,
I suppose they'd be even happier if their responsibility was confined to SFC-2000 and an approach-rated enroute controller looked after the rest above, but clearly the level of traffic doesn't justify that nor the expense.
not in putting a chinagraph pencil across a map
Peuce, you state:
I don’t think it would be anything to do with weekend warriors having a more accessible look-see, it would all be about maximising safety for airline passengers. At the present time we direct VFR aircraft to Hornsby at 2,500 feet, and airline aircraft to Hornsby at 3,000 feet, giving a 500 foot separation. (See here). I have never seen anything like that in the USA – planes are kept further than that apart when they are going over specific locations.
CaptainMidnight, you have now taken the bait so how about explaining how a single controller who is in the Albury Tower, with quite a lot of circuit traffic, can handle the situation when there is a Dash 8 inbound from the south and a VFR aircraft calls up for transit across the airspace, say at 5,500 feet when about 20 miles south of the aerodrome? Does the controller work out the “separation” in his or her mind? Do they mark it on a map? Or does he or she just say, “Remain OCTA”? I look forward to your answer.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, for them (being the new Airspace Regulators) to argue that they implemented Class E over the top of Sydney so that weekend warriors could have a more accessible look-see.
CaptainMidnight, you have now taken the bait so how about explaining how a single controller who is in the Albury Tower, with quite a lot of circuit traffic, can handle the situation when there is a Dash 8 inbound from the south and a VFR aircraft calls up for transit across the airspace, say at 5,500 feet when about 20 miles south of the aerodrome? Does the controller work out the “separation” in his or her mind? Do they mark it on a map? Or does he or she just say, “Remain OCTA”? I look forward to your answer.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Airservices had performed the Class E over Class D study correctly, they would have looked at the extra workload on the Class D controller below, when given the extra duties in the Class C above, and also factored in the greater chance of an error being made by the controller in relation to aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. This purposely wasn’t done.
In the US enroute (AFAIK) control the IFR until they are cleared for the approach, without a boundary betwixt. Why did you insert a boundary it they don't do it?
CaptainMidnight, you have now taken the bait
I was merely alluding to the fact that as TWRs at places like AY LT HB manage airspace up to 8500/FL125 the ATCs there must be happy to do so, and be satisfied that they can do so in a safe and efficient manner.
However as an outsider looking in, I offer the following – ATCs can comment on the logic.
As the ETA of the -8 is known, then following the philosophy of thinking ahead and anticipating, it would seem logical for me to in advance limit the amount of circuit traffic around the period of the -8 ETA, both to 1) make a safe hole for the -8 and 2) to ensure I wasn’t too busy to the extent of affecting my ability to safely do my job?
To avoid fancy intercom & radio footwork between the TWR, an enroute ATC and both aircraft in close proximity to an aerodrome (i.e. minutes away), it seems entirely logical to me for the TWR to manage the airspace as jFj indicates. Limiting the circuit traffic due to the -8 arrival perhaps means the TWR has the time to separate the -8 and the overflyer?
The VFR overflier may indeed get held for a few minutes until the -8 is through 4500, as like it or not the priority of flights within CTA has RPT highest.
